Live data from Hacker News

Attacking discrimination with smarter machine learning

research.google.com

171–180 of 201 posts

Re: Attacking discrimination with smarter machine learning

#172

sorry, just checking - young black men are statisically less likely to rape than equivalent white (young men) That is surprising. And given this discussion about only wanting stats that have a valid explanation as well as fitting the facts, is interesting.

We would ask that you please don't introduce this into the discussion out of nowhere, it's just off-topic. See also: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13007847.

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13006361.

Re: Attacking discrimination with smarter machine learning

#173
post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Women's healthcare costs several times more than mens over their lifetime (and that's before factoring in pregnancy). Countries are just fine "equalizing" that even though that means that men pay way more for their health insurance than they should have to. How many people complain about this happening? Collectivism is just fine when you are the one on the receiving end. Either we set absolute lines of discrimination…

Generally we're most of us in society pretty comfortable with paying for the continuation of the species. There are exceptions to every rule, of course; some of us (not including me) are unhappy we pay to pave the streets, too.

> paying for the continuation of the species

The parent comment explicitly said "before factoring in pregnancy". So this is not about continuation of the species, if that comment is correct.

Re: Attacking discrimination with smarter machine learning

#174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Generally we're most of us in society pretty comfortable with paying for the continuation of the species. There are exceptions to every rule, of course; some of us (not including me) are unhappy we pay to pave the streets, too.

> paying for the continuation of the species The parent comment explicitly said "before factoring in pregnancy". So this is not about continuation of the species, if that comment is correct.

I think the parent comment is wrong about that, and is ruling out a lot of reproductive health issues.

Re: Attacking discrimination with smarter machine learning

#175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Generally we're most of us in society pretty comfortable with paying for the continuation of the species. There are exceptions to every rule, of course; some of us (not including me) are unhappy we pay to pave the streets, too.

I don't think that we need to be subsidizing babies when the world population is 7.4 billion.

But you're pretty happy you're here, right?

Re: Attacking discrimination with smarter machine learning

#176
post #172

sorry, just checking - young black men are statisically less likely to rape than equivalent white (young men) That is surprising. And given this discussion about only wanting stats that have a valid explanation as well as fitting the facts, is interesting.

We would ask that you please don't introduce this into the discussion out of nowhere, it's just off-topic. See also: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13007847 . We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13006361 .

I did not introduce it out of nowhere it was a reference to the parent comment, which did seem relevant to the thread

It is a sensitive subject I suspect

And I cannot find the original parent comment in the discussion and I look like a total dick with my comment coming out of nowhere.

I will try and understand what moved where and get back to you

Aha:

"""A great example is how very resentful many young white men of college age are that universities are requiring them to take sensitivity courses designed to reduce the instance of campus rape, but strictly speaking men of that age are the overwhelming majority of bad actors in that environment. Statist"""

It is only my memory but I am fairly sure that the above comment said "strictly speaking young white men ..." which what prompted my comment. Maybe I transposed the white in the first part of the paragraph to the final part. Not sure. Please do check, let me know if I was being a fool or not.

Darn I need to md5 hash parent comments I reply to now :-)

Re: Attacking discrimination with smarter machine learning

#177

sorry, just checking - young black men are statisically less likely to rape than equivalent white (young men) That is surprising. And given this discussion about only wanting stats that have a valid explanation as well as fitting the facts, is interesting.

>That is surprising. Have you seen statistics to the contrary? Why would it be surprising if you don't have an informed prior in the opposite direction?

My prior is that that race has no influence on behaviour therefore I would assume no difference between rape tendency (indeed any criminal tendency) amount young men of different races.

As in I am surprised that the parent claimed ... err the parent I replied too seems to have vanished and my comment is looking pretty weird

Anyway from memory he raised that young white men had a higher rape stats than any other group - I was surprised by the inclusion of race in that

Re: Attacking discrimination with smarter machine learning

#178
post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've run into many people who share this sentiment, and it always surprises me. I've never once met a person who was cheerful about experiencing algorithm-driven prevenge. I think it's very easy to sit back and say "I think we should let this happen!" if they've never knowingly experienced loss based on this phenomenon. A great example is how very resentful many young white men of college age are that universities ar…

> . I think it's very easy to sit back and say "I think we should let this happen!" if they've never knowingly experienced loss based on this phenomenon. I'm sure that I've experienced increased costs based on this. The issue is that I don't consider that the morality of forcing my will on other people depends at all on whether their current behavior is advantageous or disadvantageous to me.

> The issue is that I don't consider that the morality of forcing my will on other people depends at all on whether their current behavior is advantageous or disadvantageous to me.

Why on earth would I believe anyone who says this? I don't think humans are capable of such abstractness. It's not a matter of wanting to, biology itself is at odds with this mindset.

But also, there are many markets which are not effectively free markets. Insurance is a good one, and health service is an especially good one. In these cases, it's very dangerous to start agreeing that insurance agencies can start to pay "pass the puck" with human life.

Re: Attacking discrimination with smarter machine learning

#179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, bogus correlations and inaccurate conclusions are explicitly NOT the computer science problem being worked on here. You are trying to frame the problem as algorithms wrongly classifying people. That's just a standard statistics problem (called "overfitting") and has nothing to do with fairness. The problem being worked on here is "what if Armenians shouldn't get car loans because they don't pay them back as much…

"We proposed a fairness measure that accomplishes two important desiderata. First, it remedies the main conceptual shortcomings of demographic parity as a fairness notion. Second, it is fully aligned with the central goal of supervised machine learning, that is, to build higher accuracy classifiers." Your dispute may be with the authors.

You're misreading the meaning of "fully aligned." If you read the 3 paragraphs preceding that sentence, the authors are referring to organization incentives being "aligned."

Re: Attacking discrimination with smarter machine learning

#180
post #66

I agree that this should be a possibility, while I think the odds that millions of law enforcement officers and criminal justice faculty would spontaneously conspire against a particular race, I also think it's more likely than some genetic predisposition toward crime (i.e., the first option).

There are so many places where this thread took a dismal turn that I suppose it's hopeless to even try pruning it, but since this is one of those places, we detached it from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13005641 and marked it off-topic.
Post reply on HN